We can now draw together our parallels. Let us attempt to characterize briefly the relations of each of the currents of social thought mentioned in the title to one another.

The Enlightener believes in the given social development, because he does not notice the contradictions inherent in it. The Populist fears the given social development, because he has already noticed these contradictions. The "Disciple" believes in the given social development, because he sees the pledges of a better future only in the full development of these contradictions. The first and last tendency therefore strives to support, accelerate, facilitate development along this path, to eliminate all obstacles that impede this development and retard it. Populism, by contrast, strives to retard and halt this development, fears the elimination of certain obstacles to the development of capitalism. The first and last tendency is characterized by what might be called historical optimism: the further and the faster affairs proceed as they are proceeding, the better. Populism, by contrast, naturally leads to historical pessimism: the further affairs proceed thus, the worse. The "Enlighteners" did not pose questions at all about the character of post-reform development, limiting themselves exclusively to war against the vestiges of the pre-reform order, limiting themselves to the negative task of clearing the path for European development of Russia. Populism posed the question of capitalism in Russia, but decided it in the sense of the reactionary nature of capitalism, and therefore could not wholly appropriate the legacy of the Enlighteners: the Populists always waged war against people who strove for the Europeanization of Russia in general, from the point of view of the "unity of civilization," waged war not only because they could not limit themselves to the ideals of these people (such a war would have been justified), but because they did not wish to advance so far in the development of the given, i.e., capitalist, civilization. The "Disciples" decide the question of capitalism in Russia in the sense of its progressiveness, and therefore not only can, but must wholly appropriate the legacy of the Enlighteners, supplementing this legacy with an analysis of the contradictions of capitalism from the point of view of propertyless producers. The Enlighteners did not single out, as an object of their particular attention, any one class of the population, spoke not only of the people in general, but even of the nation in general. The Populists wished to represent the interests of labor, without, however, indicating definite groups in the contemporary system of economy; in fact they always took the point of view of the petty producer, whom capitalism transforms into a commodity producer. The "Disciples" not only take the interests of labor as their criterion, but in doing so indicate quite definite economic groups of capitalist economy, namely the propertyless producers. The first and last tendency correspond, in the content of their aspirations, to the interests of those classes which are created and developed by capitalism; Populism in its content corresponds to the interests of the class of petty producers, the petty bourgeoisie, which occupies an intermediate position among the other classes of contemporary society. Therefore, the contradictory relation of Populism to the "legacy" is not at all accidental, but a necessary result of the very content of Populist views: we have seen that one of the fundamental features of the views of the Enlighteners consisted in an ardent striving for the Europeanization of Russia, and the Populists cannot, without ceasing to be Populists, fully share this striving.

In the end, therefore, we have arrived at the conclusion which we have already indicated more than once above on particular grounds, namely, that the Disciples are far more consistent, far more faithful custodians of the legacy than the Populists. Not only do they not disavow the legacy; on the contrary, they consider one of their principal tasks to be the refutation of those romantic and petty-bourgeois fears which cause the Populists at very many and very important points to abandon the European ideals of the Enlighteners. But it goes without saying that the "Disciples" preserve the legacy not as archivists preserve old papers. To preserve a legacy does not at all mean to limit oneself to the legacy, and to the defense of the general ideals of Europeanization the "Disciples" append an analysis of those contradictions which our capitalist development contains within itself, and an evaluation of this development from the specific point of view indicated above.